Help me jazz up my English paper with science vocab

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around enhancing the language of an English paper by incorporating scientific vocabulary, particularly in the context of a sentence from Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five." Participants explore various ways to express the concept of carbon dioxide diffusion from champagne in a more vivid and scientifically nuanced manner.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks a scientific term to describe the influence of low pressure systems on diffusion, suggesting a desire for a more dramatic phrasing.
  • Several alternatives to the original sentence are proposed, including phrases like "careless prolonged exposure to a carbon dioxide-sucking ambient atmosphere" and "slow vampirism of exposure to a CO2 hungry lower pressure system."
  • A participant introduces the term "efflux" as a synonym for diffusion, providing definitions and examples of its usage.
  • There is a discussion about the use of the word "cants" in a different context, with one participant expressing discomfort with its sound and obscurity.
  • Participants debate the correct usage of "its" versus "it's," with various opinions on grammatical correctness and personal interpretations of possessive forms.
  • One participant expresses a preference for the original sentence structure, arguing it is more succinct and accessible.
  • Another participant humorously reflects on the confusion surrounding contractions and possessives, contributing to the light-hearted nature of the debate.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the best way to phrase the sentence or the correct usage of "its" versus "it's." Multiple competing views and preferences are expressed throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants exhibit uncertainty regarding the appropriateness of certain vocabulary choices and grammatical rules, indicating a lack of settled understanding on these points.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in the intersection of language and science, particularly in creative writing or academic contexts where scientific terminology can enhance expression.

wasteofo2
Messages
477
Reaction score
2
Here is the sentence in question which needs a jazz infusion:

"In Slaughterhouse-Five, Vonnegut is so jaded by death that he is unable to draw any meaningful distinction between any different kinds of death, whether they are the deaths of the innocent millions killed in Nazi concentration camps, the innocent millions killed in Allied bombings of civilian cities, or an innocent bottle of champagne killed by the slow diffusion of it’s carbon dioxide out of solution and into the atmosphere."

I want to change the last bit so it doesn't sound like the carbon dioxide diffused out of the champagne and into the atmosphere on it's own free will, but rather that the atmosphere maliciously sucked the carbon dioxide out of it's natural habitation in the champagne. Is there any sciencey word for the quality of a low pressure systems to induce diffusion where it would otherwise not occur?
 
Science news on Phys.org
wasteofo2 said:
...or an innocent bottle of champagne killed by the slow diffusion of it’s carbon dioxide out of solution and into the atmosphere

"...or an innocent bottle of champagne killed by careless prolonged exposure to a carbon dioxide-sucking ambient atmosphere."

"...or an innocent bottle of champagne killed by deliberate, prolonged exposure to the open air."

"...or an innocent bottle of champagne killed by the slow vampirism of exposure to a CO2 hungry lower pressure system."
 
How is the word can't used when it means empty, solemn speech, implying what is not felt; insincere talk; hypocrisy. Is it right if I use it as the media had nothing in mind except releasing a barrage of cants to the public. "Cants" doesn't sound right to me..
 
klusener said:
How is the word can't used when it means empty, solemn speech, implying what is not felt; insincere talk; hypocrisy. Is it right if I use it as the media had nothing in mind except releasing a barrage of cants to the public. "Cants" doesn't sound right to me..
I wouldn't use it at all. It's a very obscure word.
 
I think I've settled on "or an innocent bottle of champagne killed by the slow assimilation of it’s carbon dioxide out of solution and into the atmosphere."
 
Isn't it "its" and not "it's"?
 
wasteofo2 said:
I think I've settled on "or an innocent bottle of champagne killed by the slow assimilation of it’s carbon dioxide out of solution and into the atmosphere."
Whatever pops your cork.
 
klusener said:
Isn't it "its" and not "it's"?
I don't know, no one can ever convince me one way or another.

If you were to rephrase "The dog of Mr. Shapiro," you would say "Mr. Shapiro's dog," not "Mr. Shapiros dog," so it makes sense to me that you would just as well say "The carbon dioxide of it," and "It's carbon dioxide."
 
  • #10
wasteofo2 said:
I don't know, no one can ever convince me one way or another.

If you were to rephrase "The dog of Mr. Shapiro," you would say "Mr. Shapiro's dog," not "Mr. Shapiros dog," so it makes sense to me that you would just as well say "The carbon dioxide of it," and "It's carbon dioxide."
Conventional usage: its = possessive of "it"
it's = "it is"
 
  • #11
If you don't mind my saying so, I liked your original version better than any of the alternatives. It's succinct and more easily comprehended by someone with no scientific background.
 
  • #12
It's definitely it's. "Its" is the plural of "it". "It's" is the possessive.
 
  • #13
"Its" is the possessive. Stop this debate.

**Anyway, I agree with Danger. Although I don't like the sentence -- or perhaps paragraph -- in the first place, how it was first is probably the best. I think you just made the sentence more overblown and pompous =P.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
icvotria said:
It's definitely it's. "Its" is the plural of "it". "It's" is the possessive.
What's "its'"
 
  • #15
icvotria said:
It's definitely it's. "Its" is the plural of "it". "It's" is the possessive.

Ack, no, the possessive of "it" is "its." The contraction for "it is" is "it's." And unless you're talking about clones of Cousin It, then the plural of "it" is "they."
 
  • #16
  • #17
Knavish said:
"Its" is the possessive. Stop this debate.
Don't make me question my grasp of the written english language! It's DEFINITELY "it's". Definitely definitely definitely. Like "the bone was the dog's," not "the bone was the dogs." "Its" is the plural of "it."

Edit: "Pronouns have their own possessive forms (my, your, his, her, its, our, their)" Hmmm, I guess I was wrong :rolleyes: *hangs head in shame* Sorry!
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Yes, "it's" does seem very logical. But, remember, English isn't very logical.

Read the others' posts for explanations.
 
  • #19
Knavish said:
I think you just made the sentence more overblown and pompous =P.
I agree. You just want to make your point about Vonnegut, and get out of that sentence. No need to draw attention to the sentence itself.
 
  • #20
icvotria said:
Don't make me question my grasp of the written english language! It's DEFINITELY "it's". Definitely definitely definitely. Like "the bone was the dog's," not "the bone was the dogs." "Its" is the plural of "it."
Sorry, but it's its. And I blame you Brits for this idiosyncrasy of possessives! :smile: :-p
 
  • #21
icvotria said:
Don't make me question my grasp of the written english language! It's DEFINITELY "it's". Definitely definitely definitely. Like "the bone was the dog's," not "the bone was the dogs." "Its" is the plural of "it."
Go to the link I posted. Pronouns have their own possessive forms: my, your, his, her, its, our, their.

"It's bone," is the grammar of too much champagne.
 
  • #22
zoobyshoe said:
Go to the link I posted. Pronouns have their own possessive forms: my, your, his, her, its, our, their.

"It's bone," is the grammar of too much champagne.
I went, I've edited, I'm embarrassed...
 
  • #23
Don't be. I only learned this last year, myself, after being teased by Nereid about misusing "it's" and "its".
 
  • #24
Haha, don't worry about it; I've seen this mistake made even in newspapers..

So.. I wonder if wasteofo2 even cares about this thread anymore.
 
  • #25
icvotria said:
I went, I've edited, I'm embarrassed...
No need to be embarrassed. We all come here to learn, and sometimes we are surprised and it's not just science we learn. :biggrin: (I wasn't even quite sure if you were serious or just trying to be funny.)
 
  • #26
Knavish said:
So.. I wonder if wasteofo2 even cares about this thread anymore.
Why should he? You called his sentence "pompous."
 
  • #27
You're all so nice! I'd've teased me about all the definitelys till kingdom come. (I'm so scared of contractions now, I had to read that through four times!)

Edit: Definitelies? Definitely's? I don't know anything anymore... :bugeye: :-p
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Notice how I was careful to call his sentence pompous, and not him. :-p
 
  • #29
Knavish said:
Notice how I was careful to call his sentence pompous, and not him. :-p
Hmmmm...have you met Math Is Hard yet? She is an infinite well of mischief, and might appreciate your talents.
 
  • #30
Well, you can say I know most of the posters.. I peek in here every so often. (Since I just got out of high school, I don't have to greatest knowledge of physics to share...as of yet anyway!)
 

Similar threads

News Ahmadinejad's speech at Durban II
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
8K